For Every Entertainment Industry Job 'Lost' To Infringement, Could 12 Jobs Be Created Elsewhere?

from the fun-with-stats dept

For years we've debunked various entertainment industry studies claiming ridiculous job and economic "losses" from copyright infringement. These studies tend to have all sorts of problems; ignoring the ability to adapt and to introduce new business models, using "ripple effects" in just one direction to double, triple and quadruple count the same "losses" over and over again, and counting every download as a "lost sale." The ripple effects one is especially pernicious because the industry likes to pretend that the impacts of infringement only go in one direction. They ignore that the money not spent on such content doesn't disappear from the economy but can be used elsewhere -- perhaps in areas that provide greater economic growth.

A few years ago, the folks at CCIA smartly took the copyright industry's exact methodology and showed that for all the claims of how much copyright contributed to the economy, exceptions to copyright contributed even more. While the copyright maximalists totally missed the point and attacked the methodology -- not realizing that, in doing so, they had undermined their own methodology -- the point was made. If you believe the claims from the copyright industry, then you also have to believe that the exceptions are more important. The methodology is the same, so either neither are right or both are right.

It looks like Rick Falkvinge, of The Pirate Party, has now done something similar on the "job loss" side of things, and concluded that, using similar methodology to the industry reports, for every job "lost" by copyright infringement, the positive ripple effects in the other direction mean that 11.8 new jobs are created. So if we accept the claim that 1.2 million jobs can be lost due to infringement, it would mean that a separate 14.2 million jobs were created elsewhere.

The report broke down the "creative industry," by noting that (contrary to copyright maximalist claims), most of that industry doesn't actually rely on copyright to make money. In fact, certain "creative" industries could be seen as "copyright-inhibited." For example, advertising. As we constantly hear from copyright maximalists, various sites are making big bucks by using advertising in association with file sharing. So based on the industry's own argument, it seems that the advertising market is clearly copyright-inhibited, and it would grow if there was greater infringement. After going through the numbers, it was determined that the majority of GDP, by quite a bit, are likely in the "copyright-inhibited" arena.

Now, you can certainly argue with the methodology here. I don't think anyone actually believes these numbers are accurate. But it's using the same basic methodology, assumptions and thought processes behind the studies in the other direction. You can also, obviously, claim that Falkvinge is biased. He is. But is he more biased than the entertainment industry legacy players who do the other studies? It seems clear that the industries are likely to be more biased, since they have billions of dollars bet on keeping the old structures in place. I think both studies are probably far from accurate in all sorts of ways, but if you're going to cite the entertainment industry's claims based on this kind of methodology, it seems you should also have to accept these claims. Not doing so suggests serious cognitive dissonance or someone who is paid not to believe the truth.

Meh.

(I hate playing devil's advocate on this because I agree with the article.)

Everybody knows that (Study Results) == (Whatever the person paying would like them to be).

Rational argument is obviously a waste of time with the MAFIAA. Anything which disagrees with their world view will be demonized and debunked. If gravity was proven to only work in favor of "infringers" then we'd see commercials tomorrow about how there's no such thing as gravity.

Re: Meh.

The whole article is classic Masnick effect, 2 + 2 = 5, etc.

Masnick hates studies that show his precious piracy is hurtful, so he tries to claim they've all been debunked (they haven't) or since they were commissioned by the industry, their data is all wrong (it isn't).

In this instance, he puts up a ludicrous pro-piracy study and tries to equate it with real studies, thus hoping to harm them by association.

What's hilarious is that he's deluded himself into thinking his con actually works.

Re: Re: Meh.

Re: Re: Meh.

Masnick hates studies that show his precious piracy is hurtful, so he tries to claim they've all been debunked (they haven't) or since they were commissioned by the industry, their data is all wrong (it isn't).

I'm not sure why you always lie. It's really quite troubling.

I have looked quite closely at the industry studies, and I'm willing to take credible studies seriously. To date, however, the industry ones are not at all credible, and yes, they have been repeatedly debunked by those who are much more credible.

In this instance, he puts up a ludicrous pro-piracy study and tries to equate it with real studies, thus hoping to harm them by association.

I did no such thing. Perhaps, next time, you should try reading what I actually said. Of course, you've been misrepresenting my comments for years on this site, so I doubt you will change any time soon. What's really sad is that if you actually bothered to pay attention to anything I had to say, maybe the band you work with who you keep complaining is failing because of YOUR own advice to them wouldn't be in so much trouble.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meh.

Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works

We've essentially taken most of our culture and tied it up to the point where only the owner of the work (who is probably not the creator) can make use of it, and in doing so we're holding back our culture. We know culture builds upon its past and its present, but more and more we see nothing but verticals. Sequel after sequel and anyone who tries to mix together various sources gets sued.

Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works

Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works

That's a false dichotomy.

Watching a video on youtube is a "user" activity, but what's commenting? Liking/disliking? Sending the link to friends? Sharing on facebook? Blogging about the video?

Certain activities can be considered "creation" or "usage" but many activities blur those boundaries. We are almost all both creators and users, and in many derivative works, dong both "full bore". A big part of why the legacy companies are failing is their failure to understand this. They are stuck in a broadcast/distribution mindset, where they produce and everyone else consumes. The reality is so much more. Their failure to adapt and innovate drives the market to route around them.

Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works

We all consume and we all create. Thanks to the internet. How many people are writing now as opposed to 30 years ago? Is it great writing? Maybe, maybe not but a boatload are still doing it. And that goes for drawing, videoing, photographing, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Competition is good, even for your own copyrighted works

Surely you've heard the phrase "beat them at their own game"? This principle (and clever applications thereof) is used extensively in quite a few industries and disciplines - the sciences and theoretical mathematics come readily to mind. It is generally not found humorous in the slightest (with the exception of the Squeeze Theorem).

I understand what you're saying here...but isn't the methodology a tad wrong? Obviously piracy doesn't create jobs, we all know that. It costs jobs. I mean, it's in the actual study by the non-biased researchers.

Re: Re: Re:

Every single person that has taken and enjoyed music they were supposed to pay for but didn't, who denies that their piracy hasn't destroyed recorded music sales is a liar and a slimeball.

Oh really? I like how your opinion is now factual.

As for your links, have you looked at how much money Edgar Bronfman made the last few years? Perhaps they wouldn't have to lay off so many people if he didn't bleed the company dry for personal gain, while failing to embrace new business models.

You seem to keep missing this point. Yes, the labels are struggling, but it's because (like you) their management refuses to adapt.

Refusing to adapt is your problem. I have offered to help, and your response has been to lie about me and insult me. Incredible. You deserve to fail.

The only ones "responsible" for job losses are the management at the labels who are too clueless to adapt. And, yes, folks like yourself who GLEEFULLY admit that you're too clueless to adapt and you'd prefer to fail, as long as you can blame it on folks who actually understand the market.

You're an incredible piece of work. No wonder you're such a failure in life.

Re: Re: Re:

Why should anyone have to prove their "non-bias" to someone as blatantly biased as you fools?

Because, these studies are being used to push for laws that seriously conflict with our core democratic beliefs. You know things like privacy, due process and innocent until proven guilty. It's extremely important that studies used in this manner are completely unbiased and not funded by those with vested interests.

As, for your link, it's study from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a vested interest wouldn't you say?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As, for your link, it's study from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a vested interest wouldn't you say?

Not only that, but it was ONLY commissioned in response to a very credible academic, peer-reviewed study funded by the Canadian gov't that showed that P2P did not have a negative impact on music sales.

Jobs being lost to infringement is the biggest lie. They just want you to think that. If you think of how many new revenue sources the music industry has at their disposal right now including advertisements on their content at places like Vevo/YouTube you'd realize that the labels are doing just fine so long as they have popular artists who generate a lot of interest.

They cut jobs because they are greedy, because technology makes many positions obsolete, and because it costs way less to make and distribute music these days. Piracy is just a way for them to point the finger and focus away from the fact its no where near as bad as they say it is. Whoa is me is working for them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow, so even people who support stronger IP enforcement but don't accept tortured logic to get there just aren't extreme enough for ya, eh buddy? I always thought you were Pro-IP and a little bit crazy - turns out you are Pro-IP and Anti-Sanity

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You do realize, at the time that the automobile was introduced, the existing transportation industry *did* cause the automobile to become effectively illegal in certain areas.

When the only reason something is "illegal" is because someone doesn't want to adapt to the market, that's a problem.

And, yes, that's why the situation is very much the same. Just because an industry got something declared illegal, it does not change that they are abusing the law to protect a business model rather than adapt.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yeah, I did. They were safety regulations. They're not germane to what we're discussing.

Ha! They were "safety regulations" in the same way that copyright laws are "about property rights." Neither is true. Both were laws to protect a legacy industry and a legacy business model. That you can't even realize that they're the same thing, once again, highlights your inability to comprehend what we adults are talking about.

See? That's the best you guys can do. You've got nothing.

We have the facts on our side. To date, you have been living off of lies and insults. Try to present SOME evidence that supports your position.

Any evidence. Really. We'll wait.

And you prove it every time you use invalid analogies.

Your inability to comprehend basic facts does not make the analogy invalid. It just demonstrates your cognitive abilities to the world.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Whatever laws that were there were not to protect "legacy business models". LOL Did you even read up on this?

Extremely familiar with the history of red flag laws, and yes, they absolutely were to protect legacy business models. Your ignorance of history is noted. We'll add it to the list of things you are ignorant about: business, economics, law and history.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Ummm I didn't say anything about due process. Do you just have all these threads open in tabs and aren't even paying attention which one you are feeding your mindless comments into?

And: HAHAHAHAHA! Give you real counterpoints? You reject every single real argument, and every single shred of evidence, in some of the most impressively childish ways I have ever seen.

As demonstrated in this very thread, even the people who are on your side of this debate think you are foolish and disingenuous. Why would I waste intelligent conversation on a grand joke like yourself?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

No, but there are lots of great arguments for updating the law and helping more artists make more money than they ever have before. I won't bore you with them though since I know you won't listen. Have fun failing!

What I've always hated

All the anti-piracy ads keep trying to tell me that they're going to fire the low-salary people in the industry. Why doesn't the CEO take a pay cut instead of firing the people he needs to make movies?

It is not the number of jobs that counts

Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label. Of course, "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" is sort of a false dichotomy to begin with (an industry might be "copyright enhanced" without being completely "copyright dependent" for example).

Re: Re:

Re:

"Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label."

Absolutely right.

This article was ridiculous and as even Mike points out, the methodology is utterly flawed and the results ludicrous.

It may be that the methodology used by publishers is also flawed but it doesn't actually matter if it is or not.

We know for a fact that piracy costs jobs and money and hampers creativity without doing any research at all.

We only use studies to try to give the general public an "understanding" of how much harm piracy does and also so that, politicians have something to say when presenting the legislation that the publishers write.

Re: Re:

How in the Nine Circles of Hell does piracy actually inhibit creativity? It enhances it (sometimes in 'illegal' ways - see deCSS and the MOD chip for examples). IT gives people something to work against (DRM) and it encourages experimentation and evolution of our collective consciousness.

And there is always a bias of some sort. I have yet to see a single piece of research that is not biased, even subconsciously. And I read a ton of journals for fun.

Re:

Hard to put any credence in the chart/study/conclusion without a real discussion of how you arrive at a "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" label. Of course, "copyright inhibited" v. "copyright dependent" is sort of a false dichotomy to begin with (an industry might be "copyright enhanced" without being completely "copyright dependent" for example).

Exactly the point. The original studies lump any industry that touches copyright in as saying that it's entirely *due to copyright*. My favorite was one such study (I forget which but I'm sure it can be dug up) that counted furniture and jewelry as part of "the copyright industries."

The whole point of this post was certainly not to claim that Falkvinge's analysis is right. I don't think it is. But to question how anyone can believe the other side's claims when using the same methodology (in fact, Falkvinge appears to go deeper than their methodology) to make their own claims.

a fix for our economic struggles?,,, Stricter copyright laws, and harsher punishments for those who 'infringe' upon the 'studio marketing labels'. With privatized 'reform' institutions being the #2 economic 'producer' in the US of A, Entertainment, ie; paid entertainers and the studios that own them, is #1,,, and we wonder why we are in heavy debt to the REAL producers of GOODS in the world....

Re: Rebuttal

Falkvinge's conclusion are based on nothing but made up statistics. Read my rebuttal here:

Am I missing something or is your rebuttal just the headline of a post where you say "he's wrong!"

Separately, did you not read my post in your rush to promote your response? Everyone knows that his numbers are made up. *That* is the point. But his numbers are based on the same methodology as the claims that piracy "costs" jobs. Your claim that "everyone knows" this is true is false. Many people do not know that because the evidence suggests it is not true.